Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses

JPMorgan Says Javice Firms Billed Millions Just for 'Attendance' (bloomberg.com) 17

JPMorgan Chase is now fighting to avoid paying $10.2 million in disputed legal charges racked up by Charlie Javice, the convicted founder of student-finance startup Frank, after court filings revealed her defense team billed more than $5 million simply for attending her fraud trial -- including on days when court wasn't even in session.

A previously sealed Delaware court filing [PDF] released Monday showed that Javice's total legal tab has reached $74 million, far exceeding the $30 million Elizabeth Holmes spent defending herself in the Theranos case. JPMorgan claims the five law firms representing Javice operated under the mindset that "someone else is paying her bills." The bank's filing focused on Quinn Emanuel and Mintz Levin, the two largest firms on Javice's defense. JPMorgan said Javice had between 16 and 29 lawyers and legal staff present every day of her six-week trial, billing an average of $360,000 daily. No more than four lawyers had speaking roles.

Among the 2,377 pages of receipts submitted for March: a Cookie Monster toddler's toy, lavender and jasmine sachets, 57 hotel room upgrades at $300 per night, and a $900 meal at Koloman, a highly rated New York restaurant. A New York jury found Javice guilty in March of misleading JPMorgan into acquiring Frank for $175 million by fabricating millions of fake users. She was sentenced in September to seven years in prison but remains free on bail pending her appeal.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

JPMorgan Says Javice Firms Billed Millions Just for 'Attendance'

Comments Filter:
  • Nice to see avarice and greed on a level worthy of Dickens.

    Wish I could attend her legal team's New Year's Eve party tonight, gonna be Impressive!
    • by alanw ( 1822 )

      > worthy of Dickens

      The names are so similar. Jarndyce and Jarndyce [wikipedia.org]

      • https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]

        JPMorgan says Javice firms billed millions just for 'attendance' - Fortune - Bob Van Voris via Bloomberg

        - Charlie Javice’s “unconscionable” $74 million tab for legal fees included more than $5 million in charges for lawyers and other staff just for attending her fraud trial, even on days court wasn’t in session.
        - Javice, who was convicted in March of defrauding the largest US bank in a $175 million deal,
        - Javice’s costs have been much higher th

  • by Pinky's Brain ( 1158667 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2025 @05:03PM (#65893557)

    Those lawyers are corrupt and taking the piss and if the judge does not hold them in contempt, they are equally so.

  • get away with that sort of in-your-face, I-does-whats-I-wants kind of bu$%sh&t is Trump. I realize that every conman is currently trying to model after the guy, but his mojo is not easily copied. He’s made of Teflon. Nothing sticks.

    Bill Clinton was similar. The media called him “slick willie”. Although his shenanigans were pretty tame compared to Trump.
  • by olddoc ( 152678 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2025 @05:15PM (#65893577)
    Instead of fee for service health care, many people would prefer the government be the sole payer. Why not do this for legal help, which is actually guaranteed in the Constitution? Why should people be expected to pay $74,000,000 to defend themselves from accusations of fraud?
    • You miss the obvious (and intentional) reason.

      In the US (to be fair, not just them) you can have as much "justice" as you can afford. They don't call it the dream team for nothing. If you can spend enough money, you can evade all manner of conviction. If you can't, you get stuck with minimum defense, if any. The public defender.

      Justice is explicitly for sale. Nobody even pretends otherwise.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        It's kinda funny but this case sort of shows the opposite. Javice effectively had infinite money to hire lawyers because JPMorgan was footing the entire bill. So they spent 75 million hiring tons of the most expensive lawyers they could find. In the end, they still lost because the facts of the case were too far out of their favor. I say this only sort of show the opposite because the situation means Javice only had access to millions of dollars if it was spent on legal fees. If they had their own unrestri
  • by SlashbotAgent ( 6477336 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2025 @06:32PM (#65893667)

    I'm trying to find out why JPMorgan is defending against legal fees. If Javice was found guilty of misleading JPMorgan, then surely JPMorgan has no responsibility for her legal fees.

    What am I missing?

    Fuck Slashdot posting these paywalled articles!

    • by Paradise Pete ( 33184 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2025 @07:35PM (#65893761) Journal

      I'm trying to find out why JPMorgan is defending against legal fees. If Javice was found guilty of misleading JPMorgan, then surely JPMorgan has no responsibility for her legal fees.

      My question as well. Turns out that a Delaware court ruled that the terms of the original Frank deal required JPMorgan to advance and cover her legal defense costs. I wonder how the lawyers that agreed to that deal are sleeping.

    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      It has something to do with JP Morgan having previously acquired her business, Frank. And this somehow puts them on the hook to cover the debts of what is now their subsidiary.

      IANAL, but that's the way I read the referenced stories.

  • by Mirnotoriety ( 10462951 ) on Thursday January 01, 2026 @08:32AM (#65894437)
    “When JPMorgan acquired Frank, the deal included an indemnification arrangement that obligated the bank to cover Javice’s defense costs for certain claims related to her work at the company.” ref [yahoo.com]

    “JPMorgan is paying Charlie Javice’s legal fees because the merger agreement and related corporate documents give her a contractual right to “advancement” of defense costs, even in disputes with JPMorgan itself and even after she was accused (and later convicted) of fraud.” ref [ainvest.com]

Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself.

Working...